Archived Thread

My theory on why no RB and yes QB

About 10 years or more, a buddy of mine once said (Steelers fan): Fast Willy Parker is one knee injury away from being Not So Fast Willy Parker...I know Barkley is amazing, and maybe even better than Zeke, but the Cowboys offer Zeke a "generational talent at OL." (everyone keeps calling Barkley a generational talent, but with our OL???). Not many RB's last much longer after a devastating knee injury, and he is one knee injury away from going from being average.

A QB obviously needs his knees, but it is less likely to occur due to the position.

I know, plenty of RBs come back from knee injuries, I mean Adrian Peterson ran for 2,000 8 months after one. But Adrian Peterson was/is a true generational talent along with a crazy body that allowed him to heal like that, rare. I am just not sold.

Yes. Cowboys have an amazing run blocking OL but if we had a serviceable OL, we can match that with a 'generational talent' at WR.

Pick your poison, help OBJ over the top with the safety or bring the safety up in the box to assist with getting a hat on Barkely? You also have the 2nd tight end (in this scenario) who can take a short pass and take it to the house if forgotten about.

I'm not even advocating Barkely as he is my 3rd choice but the offense should be able to do a lot of things with him in the game.

for the sake of it, he's got to be the guy you believe takes the reigns from Eli.

This is obviously true but this group easily looks to be competitive, talent wise, with other QB groups we've seen. They're talking about Rosen, for instance, being the best pure passer since Luck and he may not be the #1 prospect. Hard for me to see how we aren't going to have a shot at #2 to get a guy wo can "take the reigns from Eli."

not because he needs to play this September, but because he needs a little time learning before he becomes our starter.

I see comments in this thread and others that say you cannot take a QB for the sake of taking a QB. Yes, there is some truth to that. However, you also cannot pass on a solid QB if he is not "perfect". How do you know what will be available to the Giants (based upon their draft position) over the next two years? How do we know what that player will look like on our draft board after another year or two of college game film?

The RB position is nice but like others have pointed out you can find a solid RB with our next pick. I cannot imagine picking an RB with the #2 overall and then after his 5th year in the league when his rookie contract is over, we may already be talking about his durability and possibly flight risk with free agency.

for the sake of it, he's got to be the guy you believe takes the reigns from Eli.

This is obviously true but this group easily looks to be competitive, talent wise, with other QB groups we've seen. They're talking about Rosen, for instance, being the best pure passer since Luck and he may not be the #1 prospect. Hard for me to see how we aren't going to have a shot at #2 to get a guy wo can "take the reigns from Eli."

I believe Darnold can be that player, but I'm not so certain about the others. Gratefully, DG et al know better than me.

RB, QB. I don't care, let the front office who have been scouting these guys for months do their job. I just want a great player at 2, whatever position. No guarantees in football, as anyone's career QB, OL, RB etc. can end in their first practice without stepping on the field. If Barkley is it cool, Darnold/Rosen cool, Chubb cool, Nelson cool. Is there more value at the QB position yes, may Saquon be a generational talent maybe but there are no guarantees so throw a lot of the position arguments out of the window.

you are not going to go from “3-5” wins if you take Barkley. You have Eli, an improved OL, Barkley, OBJ, Shepard and Engram, you are not winning just 3-5 games. You will control the ball longer (no need to almost always pass on 3rd and 2) and by extension give a RESTED D the chance to perform well under a solid and aggressive new DC, imo..

1. If you draft with the thought this guy is 1 injury from being mediocre, then no one is a good pick. A QB is one rotater cuff injury from being a useless QB

2. Since we go from 3 to 5 wins with Barkley, what are you saying we do when we draft a QB who doesn't start or play this year as they have stated we are staying with Eli? 3 wins to 2 wins? whoo hoo!

The Qb is for the next 10 years not just next year.. what happens when 2-3 of these QBs are good starters and Eli continues his decline at 37 years of age and after 15 years of service in the NFL

And what if Webb or non first round pick this year is the next Wilson, or Brady, or Montana, or <Name your non-first round starter here>.

You mention we can get a decent RB outside of the first round. You realize roughly half of the Superbowls were won by non first round QBs, right?

The OP said the RB is an injury away from being nothing special, I just pointed out that an injury can happen to anyone.

and B. The OP indicated that NEXT year we go from 3 to 5 wins. So if we draft a QB, who comes in and lights it up and Eli is benched, great.
Or by their mere presence alone we will we be a better team?

you are not going to go from “3-5” wins if you take Barkley. You have Eli, an improved OL, Barkley, OBJ, Shepard and Engram, you are not winning just 3-5 games. You will control the ball longer (no need to almost always pass on 3rd and 2) and by extension give a RESTED D the chance to perform well under a solid and aggressive new DC, imo..

you would HOPE but this OL has not proven itself yet. Every year we THINK it will be better. This is still a question mark. Until we see it on the field, we have to anticipate more of the same.

Remember last off season when people said we would be dominant when considering the addition of Brandon Marshall? Two games into the season there was amnesia everywhere on BBI.

1. If you draft with the thought this guy is 1 injury from being mediocre, then no one is a good pick. A QB is one rotater cuff injury from being a useless QB

2. Since we go from 3 to 5 wins with Barkley, what are you saying we do when we draft a QB who doesn't start or play this year as they have stated we are staying with Eli? 3 wins to 2 wins? whoo hoo!

The Qb is for the next 10 years not just next year.. what happens when 2-3 of these QBs are good starters and Eli continues his decline at 37 years of age and after 15 years of service in the NFL

And what if Webb or non first round pick this year is the next Wilson, or Brady, or Montana, or <Name your non-first round starter here>.

You mention we can get a decent RB outside of the first round. You realize roughly half of the Superbowls were won by non first round QBs, right?

The OP said the RB is an injury away from being nothing special, I just pointed out that an injury can happen to anyone.

and B. The OP indicated that NEXT year we go from 3 to 5 wins. So if we draft a QB, who comes in and lights it up and Eli is benched, great.
Or by their mere presence alone we will we be a better team?

QB is by far the most important position. The Giant's QB is 37 and has not played particularly well in recent seasons.
You have the draft opportunity to select one of several QBs whom experts evaluate as worthy of a high pick.
You have the luxury of not forcing a rookie QB to play immediately on a team that may lack talent.
You don't know when you will again have the opportunity to draft a highly rated QB, so you could be without a credible QB when Eli is totally finished.
If you take a QB, he may not turn out to be a "franchise QB" (whatever that is), but it is likely he will be a credible QB who can win with a good team.
I know there may be counter "what ifs", but what I've listed here tells me it would be stupid not to draft a QB.

QB is by far the most important position. The Giant's QB is 37 and has not played particularly well in recent seasons.
You have the draft opportunity to select one of several QBs whom experts evaluate as worthy of a high pick.
You have the luxury of not forcing a rookie QB to play immediately on a team that may lack talent.
You don't know when you will again have the opportunity to draft a highly rated QB, so you could be without a credible QB when Eli is totally finished.
If you take a QB, he may not turn out to be a "franchise QB" (whatever that is), but it is likely he will be a credible QB who can win with a good team.
I know there may be counter "what ifs", but what I've listed here tells me it would be stupid not to draft a QB.

Agree 100% and I'm scratching my head as well as to why so many posters don't grasp this.

Early on DG talked about making a concerted effort to rid the organization of leaks. If the gushing over Barkley is to be believed, what’s the point of getting rid of leaks?

Who says there are leaks? When a reporter cites an inside source for me it means he has no source and has nothing else to write about that day. The article ends up being nothing more than personal conjecture.

QB is by far the most important position. The Giant's QB is 37 and has not played particularly well in recent seasons.
You have the draft opportunity to select one of several QBs whom experts evaluate as worthy of a high pick.
You have the luxury of not forcing a rookie QB to play immediately on a team that may lack talent.
You don't know when you will again have the opportunity to draft a highly rated QB, so you could be without a credible QB when Eli is totally finished.
If you take a QB, he may not turn out to be a "franchise QB" (whatever that is), but it is likely he will be a credible QB who can win with a good team.
I know there may be counter "what ifs", but what I've listed here tells me it would be stupid not to draft a QB.

Everything you say is true and was also true in 1992 with an aging Simms. It didn't mean that reaching for Dave Brown in the supplemental draft made any sense whatsoever...

QB is by far the most important position. The Giant's QB is 37 and has not played particularly well in recent seasons.
You have the draft opportunity to select one of several QBs whom experts evaluate as worthy of a high pick.
You have the luxury of not forcing a rookie QB to play immediately on a team that may lack talent.
You don't know when you will again have the opportunity to draft a highly rated QB, so you could be without a credible QB when Eli is totally finished.
If you take a QB, he may not turn out to be a "franchise QB" (whatever that is), but it is likely he will be a credible QB who can win with a good team.
I know there may be counter "what ifs", but what I've listed here tells me it would be stupid not to draft a QB.

Everything you say is true and was also true in 1992 with an aging Simms. It didn't mean that reaching for Dave Brown in the supplemental draft made any sense whatsoever...

QB is by far the most important position. The Giant's QB is 37 and has not played particularly well in recent seasons.
You have the draft opportunity to select one of several QBs whom experts evaluate as worthy of a high pick.
You have the luxury of not forcing a rookie QB to play immediately on a team that may lack talent.
You don't know when you will again have the opportunity to draft a highly rated QB, so you could be without a credible QB when Eli is totally finished.
If you take a QB, he may not turn out to be a "franchise QB" (whatever that is), but it is likely he will be a credible QB who can win with a good team.
I know there may be counter "what ifs", but what I've listed here tells me it would be stupid not to draft a QB.

Everything you say is true and was also true in 1992 with an aging Simms. It didn't mean that reaching for Dave Brown in the supplemental draft made any sense whatsoever...

The 4 top QBs are all rated much higher than Dave Brown.

True, but none have all-pro elite Luck/Ryan/Stafford grades. And the opportunity cost with a second pick is much higher with a talent like Barkley than it was with Brown and the 1993 draft when the Giants would have been drafting tenth...

you are not going to go from “3-5” wins if you take Barkley. You have Eli, an improved OL, Barkley, OBJ, Shepard and Engram, you are not winning just 3-5 games. You will control the ball longer (no need to almost always pass on 3rd and 2) and by extension give a RESTED D the chance to perform well under a solid and aggressive new DC, imo..

Yes. Cowboys have an amazing run blocking OL but if we had a serviceable OL, we can match that with a 'generational talent' at WR.

Pick your poison, help OBJ over the top with the safety or bring the safety up in the box to assist with getting a hat on Barkely? You also have the 2nd tight end (in this scenario) who can take a short pass and take it to the house if forgotten about.

I'm not even advocating Barkely as he is my 3rd choice but the offense should be able to do a lot of things with him in the game.

No more soft two deep man to stymie OBJ, Saquon will rape any LB in the flats, wheels, and angles. Any catch is a potential 80 yd to run.

You're entitled to want a QB, but if part of your rationale for not wanting a RB is that it would *only* net us 2 extra wins, then drafting a QB makes less sense since they are all but guaranteed to sit next year and thus will add 0 wins to the team.

Early on DG talked about making a concerted effort to rid the organization of leaks. If the gushing over Barkley is to be believed, what’s the point of getting rid of leaks?

Who says there are leaks? When a reporter cites an inside source for me it means he has no source and has nothing else to write about that day. The article ends up being nothing more than personal conjecture.

DG has been pretty vocal about Barkley as a prospect. If his goal is to try to disguise the Giants intentions at 2, why would he be so vocal about Barkley?

Early on DG talked about making a concerted effort to rid the organization of leaks. If the gushing over Barkley is to be believed, what’s the point of getting rid of leaks?

It's not a leak if Gettleman and Shurmur themselves both talk about how good of a prospect Barkley is lol, they've done the same thing with Chubb.

I know, which means both players are less likely to be the pick.

It’s one way or the other. Either they are truly holding their cards close to the vest and the Chubb/Barkley interest is smoke, or they’re contradicting their stated position about the draft and being transparent re: the prospects.

you are not going to go from “3-5” wins if you take Barkley. You have Eli, an improved OL, Barkley, OBJ, Shepard and Engram, you are not winning just 3-5 games. You will control the ball longer (no need to almost always pass on 3rd and 2) and by extension give a RESTED D the chance to perform well under a solid and aggressive new DC, imo..

This is very true. 3 phases of coaching have been improved thats 3-5 wins in itself.

& Gallman averaged over 4 yards a carry was the fact that everyone played us in a two deep zone regardless of the fact that all of our best receivers were hurt because McAdoo was to stubborn and stupid to change it up. Our running game was also something that other teams hadn't seen much of so they probably didn't spend time looking at our old tape from 2015. LOL

Never ever ever reach for need when HOF talent is on the board. Will it be Rocky Thompson, Cedric Jones, Ereck Flowers? OR Will it be Lawrence Taylor, Michael Strahan, Odell Beckham?

If Barry Sanders is available, why would you ever leave him on the board to select Ryan Tannehill, Jay Cutler, Paxton Lynch or Johnny Manziel????

The answer from years of agonizing pain is simple. You wouldn't. You shouldn't. You mustn't.

And takes the QB.

How many super Bowl MVP's have been from the RB position in the last 10 years or so? You see the way I can twist things too?

The fact is you don't know Barkley is "Barry" anymore than you know if the Giants QB will be "Manziel." You are just twisting things to try to justify your argument.

For me- I want the QB. But if they didn't go QB or trade down- I'd want SB. It's exciting to think about the possibilities no doubt.

But imo in your zeal to deliberately downplay the current crop of QB's my counter is positional value for a QB more than likely to be very good is worth it.

I can't believe only 1 good QB is coming out of this draft. Further you see the value that was paid for Cousins and Stafford and yet what is Bell getting? Rather than spending the money on Cousins/Stafford vs Bell in the future - you'd be able to pick up additional FA players by not having to overpay so muhc for the QB. IMO that's the main point many of you non-QB fans are missing. Barry showed us - you can't do much without A TEAM.

you would HOPE but this OL has not proven itself yet. Every year we THINK it will be better. This is still a question mark. Until we see it on the field, we have to anticipate more of the same.

Remember last off season when people said we would be dominant when considering the addition of Brandon Marshall? Two games into the season there was amnesia everywhere on BBI.

^^^^ This
Adding weapons alone does not transform your team if you don't have an OL. We already have weapons, but we can't get them the ball in a situation to take advantage of their skills. Moving the safety around doesn't do a damn thing if you have 3 DL or LBs in the backfield before the play is barely under way. We had way too many jailbreaks.

I have said this before, but this OL, at least on paper, is only marginally better than what the Giants had last year. 60% of it is the same trash we rolled out last year. Omameh at best a JAG. Solder is a huge upgrade, but even he is middle of the pack with regards to starting LTs, he certainly is not top 10. Better LT, worse at LG (than a healthy Pugh), the rest is the same garbage. Before you downgrade Pugh because of health, my premise is not much better than what we started last year with, which we know that line was awful.

Getting Solder helps because LT is the toughest position to get. But overall... It is still very much a work in progress. Maybe it shows significant improvement with a good offseason next year.

RE: Agree With The Main Premise That The Giants Should Take a QB at 2...

Part of the USA Today Sports Media Group
BigBlueInteractiveSM provides news, analysis, and discussion on the New York Football Giants. This site is owned and operated by Big Blue Interactive, LLC. If you
have any questions or comments about this website, please see our contact information page.